FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Bruce R. Falls,  
  Complainants  
  against    Docket #FIC 2002-011

Chief, Police Department,

City of Hartford,

  
  Respondent August 28, 2002
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 15, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  

           

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on January 8, 2002 the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with an accurate copy of activity reports for Terminal 1676 for the following dates: March 29, 30 and 31, 1998, April 1-7, 10-17, 19-24, 26-30, 1998 and May 1 and 2, 1998 (hereinafter “requested records”).

 

3.  It is found that by letter dated September 10, 2001 the complainant requested the reports described in paragraph 2, above.

 

4.  It is found that by letter dated September 17, 2001, the respondent’s corporate counsel acknowledged receipt of the request, informed the complainant that “we have asked our on-line vendor to provide a cost estimate for creating” the requested records “as well as the length of time needed to complete them” and “we hope to have this information within the next several days.”

 

5.  It is found that by letter dated October 9, 2001 the respondent followed up with the complainant and informed him that the cost of  producing the requested records would be $7266, which the complainant paid the respondent on or about November 19, 2001.

 

6.  It is found that the respondent obtained the requested records from its vendor and forwarded such records to the complainant by letter dated January 2, 2002.  It is found that the complainant received same on or about January 3, 2002.

 

7.  It is found that the complainant reviewed the records he received and upon identifying certain discrepancies informed the respondent of such discrepancies.

 

8.  It is found that the respondent followed up with its vendor and the vendor acknowledged that some of the reports for certain dates were not accurate, and ran a new set of reports for the dates requested by the complainant.  It is found that the inaccuracies identified by the vendor did not appear in the second set of reports.  It is found that the second set of reports were then provided to the complainant on or about February 13, 2002.  The complainant acknowledged receipt of such reports.

 

9.  It is found that the complainant is seeking the activity reports to prove that a $27.5 Million Powerball ticket was sold to him back in March 1998.

 

10.   It is found that the complainant is suspicious of the accuracy of the reports he has received because of the discrepancies he identified in the first set of reports provided to him.

 

11.  It is found that the discrepancies in the first set of reports provided to the complainant resulted from the vendor using its present computer system to produce 1998 reports.  It is found that after the complainant pointed out the discrepancies the vendor realized that because in 1998 they used different software and hardware it needed to reconfigure its present computer system in order to run 1998 reports.

 

12.  It is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with the requested reports thereby fulfilling its FOI obligation.

 

13.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

 

14.  It is also found that the respondent has informed the complainant that “the $27.5 Million Powerball jackpot in question was not won in the State of Connecticut…[and that] the winning Powerball ticket was sold, purchased and claimed in the state of Minnesota…[and that] this issue has been thoroughly researched by the Connecticut Lottery Corporation and it has been determined that there was no winning ticket sold in Connecticut for the $27.5 Million Powerball jackpot drawing on March 21, 1998…[and that] this finding was independently  verified by the Division of Special Revenue, which regulates the Connecticut Lottery Corporation, as well as the Office of the Attorney General.”

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 28, 2002.

 

_______________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission


 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

 

Bruce R. Falls

98 Starks Hill Road

Torrington, CT 06790

 

Connecticut Lottery Corporation

c/o Richard L. Street, Esq.

Carmody & Torrance LLP

50 Leavenworth St., PO Box 1110

Waterbury, CT 06721-1110

 

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-011/FD/paj/9/3/2002